About your Search

20110701
20110731
STATION
CSPAN 21
CSPAN2 21
LANGUAGE
English 42
Search Results 0 to 41 of about 42
, a big thank-you to the staff, without mean, this would not have been possible, as usual. thank you very much for all you did. [applause] let me just say, we have a lot of work to do. let's make hay with the sunshine. those involved in the press conference, could you please go immediately to grand ballroom be because we are late. [laughter] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> wrapping up this session of the national governors' association from salt lake city. we just heard from washington state governor, the chair for this summer's conference. we will have more events throughout the weekend. tomorrow afternoon o'clock 30, the session on remembering 9/11, protecting borders and communities. on sunday at 1:30, the closing session. you will also be able to find all the segments on line in their entirety at c-span.org -- online in their entirety at c- span.org. it >> this weekend, live from salt lake city, the nation's governors look at the net the -- lessons of 9/11, and the featured speaker talks competitivenes
, this is a debate about our economy, and frankly is a big debate about the future of our country. until recently, the president was demanding that the congress increased the debt limit with no strings attached. as a matter of fact, the treasury secretary sent me a letter two days after we were sworn in demanding that we give him a clean increase in the debt limit. i responded and told the treasury secretary at the american people would not tolerate a clean increase in the debt ceiling unless there was serious spending cuts attached and will reform in the way we spent the american people's money. i went to new york city in may and gave a speech to the new york economic club where i outlined the challenges we were facing and i made it clear that we would not increase the debt limit for the cuts that exceeded that increase in the debt limit and that there would be no new taxes and that there would be serious spending reforms put in place. it is time to get serious. i'm confident that the leaders here in the congress can act, the white house will give serious, we will. >> your own aides say that the
, this is our home. water in rivers play a big role in the lives of many montanans. the mclean family ms. jamieson of the river ran through it, it was the big lack for further. for me and my family comments the yellowstone river. i grew up in billing 50 miles from the river banks of yellowstone herd as a boy, a salmon fish the river and spent time at a family and friends floating down in inner tubes and barbecuing on its banks. in fact, i lost a couple of high school and then drowning -- separate downy accidents that river. the thousands of other, the yellowstone is her family with her. the oil spill is a pretty big deal for us. we have questions. i find two buildings about every week and over the yellows are river. it provides so many good shots to her community, just like the river is a part of montana's culture, so is the energy. montana is a warehouse of energy options. we've got it all, wind, solar, geothermal, biomass, cool, biofuels. exceptions help us provide energy this country needs to end our addiction to foreign oil and create good paying jobs. the reason i point this out is
was to take up big visas and assemble them in space was more and any year, and one year of space station construction was going to be more e. l. d. hours then had them witnessed by all a faring nations together. it exceeded it in one year. so there was really serious questions about the feasibility of space station freedom as design. the national academy of sciences again, the question is for scientific use of the space station. in fact there were explicit critical coming out of the space station particularly when some of the first trade-off decisions were made a large centrifuge that was going to allow the creation of all kinds of life science experiments. they call the marginal. we have the beginning of unhappy international partners, who had gleefully signed up to be part of the space station freedom program but as that program began to evolve and the interactions and the decisions they realize there were less partners and subcontractors and there was real unhappiness being expressed about that. and the planetary program and the great observatory programs have been put on hold for the
and dime the people who need it most but when it comes to war, there's a big, fat blank check. we need to be honest with ourselves. we need to be honest with each other. across the country, the americans, hard working, tax paying citizens who oppose war. they oppose their hard earned dollars being sent overseas to support 10 long years of war. but let me be clear. they do not oppose paying their taxes. they are not anarchists rr anti-government activists. but as conscientious objectors to war these americans want their taxes invested here at home. think want to provide food for the homeless, pave roads and strong schools. they want medicare and social security to exist for their parents, their children and their grandchildren. they want their tax dollars to care for soldiers and their families when they return home. they will see an end and cure to cancer. they want a cure for aids. they want to see small business thrive. and innovation become the en-in of our economy. they want high speed rail like in asia. they want transit systems that are safe and get people where they knead to go.
is a fortune and costly at my 13-foot wide townhouse nearby the capitol and heating costs is a big issue in oregon. the building technologies program reduces the costs until homes and buildings by fostering private-public partnership to develop techniques and tools for making homes and businesses more affordable, productive and efficient. according to the department of energy, the building technologies program has resulted in fully 14 -- $14 billion of direct savings to the consumer, savings that has been re-invested in local economies. additionally since its founding 20 years ago, the building technologies program has saved the equivalent of over 12 billion gallons of gasoline. this amendment would return the building technologies program to just its current fiscal year 2011 funding level. this amendment will cost nothing extra, because it is fully offset by taking funds from the office of the secretary. according to the energy and water appropriations subcommittee report, quote, a significant fraction of the funding directed in prior appropriations reports to specified energy efficienc
. we've heard from a number of big name performers now who said they got their entry the development of their career, through the n.e.a. some gave back by developing a theater in communities that they thought had seen their best days behind them and yet by uniting the community, it's clear now their best days are ahead of them because young people want to stay in that community. they're excited about the arts that are provided. this program does so much with so little. and yet the gentleman wants to cut $10.6 million, that's .03% of nondefense discretionary funding. we had $174 million in the fiscal year 2011 bill. it was cut down to $155 million, ultimately, for f.y. 2011. now it's been cut another $20 million, down to $135 million. i know my good friend from idaho, the chair of the committee, wishes and knows it should be more. but i think most of us, when we reflect, understand that if we continue to take money from programs that provide so much to really the heart and soul of this nation, we will lose those abilities, those instruments we have to reduce the harshness and rancor t
the big fight's going going to be over the debt ceiling limit. that's where the hard negotiations are going to be put out. and then they will probably be given a new number, and they'll have to revisit that bill that they've worked on in committee and meet the new number. so if that's what happens, it's probably a good thing. host: so first things first. guest: look, here's what each department or each function of government is going to be getting, and then work out what you think you can get, the most bang for the buck, so to speak. host: let's get to calls for you. we're going to begin with a call from los angeles. michelle is a democrat there. you're on for david keating of the club for growth. caller: given that you made the comments about t republican candidate mitt romney has developed an unshakable reputation as a flip-flop per uses federal powers to coerce taxpayers, and tim pawlenty is hard to pin down, who do you like? guest: well, what the club for we haveohas been doing, published a series of white papers on many of the presidential candidates, all of those that have d
for corporations sending jobs overseas. tax cuts to big oil. tax breaks for people not paying their fair share. not one red cent from any of those special interests from those who should be paying their fair share. again, jeopardizing the opportunity for education for these young people. it's really a stunning thing. people should know about it. our young people would not approve of it because it hurts their prospect and our country's competitiveness as they volunteer to say we will do our share to reduce the deficit. they hoped and we all do that whatever is done at that table will not impede economic growth. as you know, we're engaged in these talks about listening -- i don't know how much evidence a wise person would need to know that it's important for us to remove all doubt that we would have set that ceiling. 191 days, no jobs still in sight that's worth its salt. yet dealing recklessly, dealing recklessly with our economy, recklessly by even the thought that the debt ceiling would not be lifted. you see what some of the rating agencies have said, moody's and i don't know if standard & p
of her patients which is a big, huskey guy. they used to kind of razz each other. she did the soup de nuts checkup. she did a urine test. she found a tiny speck of blood at the lab which they were concerned about. turned out he had bladder cancer. because they were able to detect it so quickly, because of that annual checkup and the cancer screening tests that are now covered under medicare, it was a day surgery, in and out and really very nonintrusive event that cost a fraction of what it would have been if he had not that checkup to detect that cancer early. she had at least two other patients because of the new affordable care act annual checkup where they detected cancer and, again, were able to intervene at a low cost compared to what it would have benefited a new full-blown case. mr. tonko: representative courtney, we are talking about taking an economic sound program, like medicare, for our nation's seniors and allows for the benefit of pooled resource fathers coast to coast to serve our nation's seniors well. the concern here is, representative garamendi, we wanted -- they wan
don't think it's an appropriate thing to simply wheel the old-fashioned political tool of a big, heavy, draconian weapon and try to slash their budget and think you are going to change it. you're not. and you will be perceived, this house will be perceived, by the general public for what this is. simply attempt to roll back our progress on policing our own activities. i understand that that might make some people comfortable. but it's not the right thing to do. and people here know that. this is payback. and i don't mind. i'm one of the few members of this house who call myself proudly a politician. i understand payback. but let's call it what it is. we don't like what they do. and we are going to defund them. don't pretend that something else is going on. that's what it is. it will be bad for the house of representatives. and it will not change the things that people have expressed that they don't like. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from north carolina is recognized. mr. watt: mr. chairman, i yield one minute to the gentle
, south carolina, utah and i am leaving out north carolina and illinois because those are the big jackpot states with a really driving party potential for gain. than i have a question mark as far as which party is going to gain a seat or lose a seat and it could be a fair fight in states like iowa, new jersey and arizona are go but i'm sure the five states we'll be talking a lot about this morning and i will stop short in going on depth in this are illinois and north carolina which are opportunities for partisan capitalization on this redistricting. illinois for democrats picking up potential a five or six seats or four or five seats republicans losing five or six and illinois. north carolina where i put republican gains have possibly three seats be the -- depending on the legal challenge to the mass republicans are proposing and then california where he think democrats at the end of the day will probably pick up two or three seats as a result of the entangling of california's uncompetitive line at the moment. texas where i expect republicans netting two seats depending on the legal chall
, and i would say let's go back to basics. when you have a big problem, you go back to the basics where you have to start to solve a problem, and the basics are a budget. if we can agree on a budget, and, heck, i think we all agree that if we get one on the floor, there's going to be a lot of amendments. there's going to be a lot of amendments to a budget resolution. let's get started. let's use this week to produce a budget resolution, and let's start having the amendments about spending levels, about spending priority. that will be a way that we can start the process of determining if we can, in fact, lift the debt ceiling because there are significant cuts in the spending in this country that would show the rest of the world that is holding our debt as well as the american people who are living with this government and holding part of the debt that we're serious, that we are going to get our financial house in order, and we're going to do it with a budget resolution that cuts spending and sets priorities like every family and every business in this country are required to do, and mos
that was a big mistake. >> i certainly would. >> politically and. >> and detaching the dollar from the gold standard. >> we're all foreign policy guys. you domestic guys react later. >> the second was that he didn't mine high fong and do more intense bombing of north vietnam earlier in 1969 rather than when he did it after the trip to china and before the trip to the soviet union. we forget that the trip to the soviet union was the first trip by an american president to the soviet union and he did it against the backdrop of very strong military attacks on north vietnam that he later regret he had done earlier. my question is, if he had done it earlier, would it have been possible to do it earlier with respect to his thinking about going to china? would it have been possible to go to china against that? and with respect to the soviet union, would he have been able to do it without having some violent response from them. after the trip to china, they were unnerved by that and the very fact that the trip was pulled off after that was seen, as you can imagine how the north vietnamese held about
me. i hope we can move ahead in the future. >> as you heard, one of the big difficulties is having them blessing the treaty. the caribbean treaty is extremely critical as are the others. other countries are insuring. they will get an advantage over us. we wait around so long. when the third into the package, most of the amendments either eliminate that are changing its in ways that fit with the bill. it presents a fast-track process. to that is only using get the big compromise. they thought they could jam it through in this treaty. is it important? >> absolutely. they have agricultural benefits. we finish them a lot. the curia in a tree would provide for it. they have always had some reasons that they have for not using this. it has always been tied to the same excuses that the koreans have used. not only would it open it, it is to help in china as well. it is a huge market. they need to have adequate time. they need to bring out what the difficulties are. desire opportunity to say something on the bill. he does not think it is worth the time to come up. we were meeting at the bla
of the big package. we think that estimate was given in 2009 and the authors of the estimate think that its low, and we are very concerned that it's going to be much higher than that and we will continue to get much higher than that. and obviously the collection the states and governments that rely on the revenue, but those folks in those little towns across the country that are trying to make a living selling to the people in their community that have an automatic six to 8% price disadvantage simply because the truck is driving out hundred and of packages is having a devastating effect on small and medium-size retailers. i get we too many telephone calls from the country that are in their view being killed by that price differential. >> he raises the point some of the leading proponents of applying the sales tax online or wal-mart and target national retailers who have also been blamed by small retailers for price pressures and that sort of thing. how would you respond to that? >> they are major proponents of this, but they are not alone. i spend a lot of time talking to the after market a
up with big solutions. the 1980s, particular time is fe in the state legislature then god was happening in washington. when i was 39 years old in 1983s ronald reagan and tip of then' haida meeting at the whiten house. allegedly went something likehat this. the president says social security is going brokeep in 20 years he would discuss the report. o'neill said i agree. the president's amateur comic, t but not one to t raise tax. i't o'neill said i'm like, but i don't what to get the benefit. pick up the extras and said what you want to do quite to push th9 eligibility out to get the systematic and actuarial soundness. i was 39ing in 1983. of i would've been collecting social security at the age of 6r in 2010. are because reagan got togethert they push eligibility out by one year to reach 66, not age 65. a it goes up to messier to save 67 in a few years. the actuarial soundness for 67 years. the reason it is now in trouble again is that retracted aecurity communist difficulties thatcollo cause people come at babyci boomers to go to the bank in asw social security to collect
speaker boehner has been very sincere about trying to do something big. i think that he would like to do something big. his politics within his caucus are very difficult. you're right. this is part of the problem with a political process where folks are rewarded for saying irresponsible things to win elections were held the political game when we are in the position to try to do something hard. we haven't always laid the groundwork for it, and i think that it's going to take some work on his side but it's also going to take work on our side in order to get this done. the vast majority of democrats on capitol hill would prefer not to have to do anything on entitlements and would prefer frankly not to have to do anything on some of these debt and deficit problems and i'm sympathetic to their concerns because they are looking looking after folks hurting and vulnerable and there are families out there and seniors who are dependent on some of these programs, and what i tried to explain to them is number one, if you look at the numbers, and medicare in particular will run out of money and we w
effort to roll back the big government mentality in washington. and allow states to manage their own affairs. zeroing out funding for this commission will be a good step in sending government powers back to the states and people. i urge support of my amendment and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from indiana, for what purpose do you rise? >> strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. visclosky: i rise in strong opposition to the gentleman's amendment. the southeast crescent commission includes counties from north carolina, south carolina, georgia, alabama, mississippi an florida that are not already served by the a.r.c. or the d.r.a. though relativity new this regional commission is intended to address planning and coordination on reeg that will investments and targeting resources to those communities with the greatest needs. many of these areas covered by this commission suffer from high unemployment. 10% in south carolina, one of the highest in the nation. marion county in south carolina
of the gang of six proposal -- which is admittedly big. which is admittedly big. there are very, very clear provisions making sure that we are going to make massive cuts in programs for working families, for the elderly, for the chirp. -- children. those are black and white cuts. what about the revenue? well, it's kind of vague, kind of vague. the projection is maybe we'll raise over a ten-year period $100 billion in revenue. where that's coming from? from the wealthiest people in the country? coming from large corporations who are enjoying huge tax breaks? mr. president, that is not clear at all. what happens if we don't reach that revenue of a trillion dollars? what mechanism is in place to say that it happens? that mechanism, in fact, does not exist at all. what we do know, and we don't, and in fairness i think the authors of this proposal would acknowledge this, this is not all the details that are out there, but certainly i want middle class families to understand that when we talk about increase revenues, you know where that comes from? where it may come from? it may come from cutback
that we do this timely. that's what i want -- one of the big takeaways i got from the discussion. >> on match and your a little bit -- sorry sorry. even if we do with august 2 or 15 or whatever that date is if we don't take control of the long-term jurek jury that was often used in their we could still be facing the downgrade. and still that cascade effect happens right? i mean, the cascade effect on interest rates for consumer data long-term business debt, that still could have been. so this is a two piece there. this is not just taking care of the august outline and not questioned. that is the long-term and that is going to affect interest rates as well. >> today recommend tax hikes with the spending cuts? >> absolutely not. >> they did say one thing that they thought it was important to have a bipartisan resolution. may be vested in the obvious given we have a democrat president, but they did point that out. i thought it was important to have a bipartisan resolution. >> and again the experts who were talking
hey that don't does not very big. it is not very expensive to lift the ball up and get it over that bump and let it keep rolling downhill. i am going to invest or if i'm the person involved i'm going to seek investors and keep growing. there are many many situations though where that just doesn't work. it doesn't work because oh you know it is difficult to get anyone ball and what you have to do is old those that ball. than that is a public public -- anybody can roll down that so it may take many of the situations either a public good to appropriate the value of it or at least partially publicly. we see that all over the place. the human genome products as was it example. every pharmaceutical company that would be a good thing to have the genome but it was not going to be something that they could appropriate enough of to make essentially optimal investment. gps. everybody, maybe could have been smart enough to say if we had all the gps satellites up there i can make rockets and all sorts of things. imagine going out to investor saying i'm going to go do that. whatever you can
question was at the time you guys took the survey, the big concern was unit cohesion disruption. in the process of training, which was having no problems, has there been any indication that separate or different from what we talked about in that survey that once we pass training and pass the repeal and this really starts and open services allowed, they will be unit cohesion coin-operated onto the combat. >> as the service chiefs have received information from their leadership, their change of command to include combat areas over the last six months, there has been no distractions from unit cohesion that have been reported. so it has been very, very positive. the information has come from the leadership in this building. >> the obama administration has said they are no longer appealing challenges to doma. if doma were to fall in a circuit court and only partially, you know, be invalidated for a portion of the country, would you have contingency plans to extend benefits to military families, things like military families in those areas? >> well, and my understanding of the adminis
couldn't get along well enough in those days to spend more money on big programs. there was legislation that was passed that supported in a bipartisan way by president clinton and republicans in congress to limit spending. so there was some spending restraint. but the reality is the last time we had our fiscal house in order and were spending less money than we were taking in was a time in which the economy was growing. if we really want to address the issue of balancing our budget, we should focus much more attention than we have on growing the economy, putting people to work and allowing as they work that the taxes will be collected. the greatest opportunity we have to improve people's lives is to create an environment in which jobs are created, in which employers feel comfortable in investing in the future and buying plant and equipment and putting people to work. and so while it's cut, cap and balance today, we need to make certain we don't forget, in my view, that fourth component: grow the economy. and in my view, that means a tax code that is certain and fair, that doesn't change
the opportunity to do something big. it can force our government to live within its means and put the economy on a stronger footing for the future. and allows us to invest in that future. we agreed that until we solve the deficit problem, we need to find trillions in savings over the next decade. and significantly more this fall. that is the amount i put forward in the framework i announced a few months ago. that is around the same amount the republicans have put forward in their own plans. it is the kind of substantial progress that we should be aiming for here. to get there, we need to take on spending and the tax cut. and this will require both parties to get out of our comfort zones, and both parties to agree on a real compromise. i am ready to do that. i believe there are enough people in each party that are willing to do that. we need to come together over the next few weeks to reach a deal that will reduce the deficit and a pulled the credit of the united states government in the credit of the american people. that is why even as we continue discussions, i have asked the leaders of bot
of a medium scenario about $3 trillion a big scenario 4 trillion. and you know for each level. and obama is clearly urging all of the congressional leaders of both parties to sort of move off their fixed positions and go for the bigger package, which would require more sacrifices from both sides. you know, the other thing that has been sort of hitting capitol hill today is that the president is talking about including social security and this package. that is something that all of the democrats have opposed particularly senate majority leader harry reid. >> have democrats commented on that after the meeting today? >> we have gotten sort of mixed signals from democrats on that. you know you have -- it is sort of interesting, the democrats that were in the room are divided on the question. harry reid and pelosi have been opposed to things like raising the retirement age or tweaking benefits, while steny hoyer, the number two democrat in the house and dick durbin, the number two democrat in the senate have both been wil
they think, no big deal. if we don't raise the debt ceiling, we can't pay 60% of our debts. but we've got to make some concrete choices on who gets that 60%. and no matter who gets it, it will create a cat clizz. for the united states and perhaps the -- a cataclysm for the united states and perhaps the entire world. italy, spain, greece, ireland are already in trouble in europe, an they don't have central banks like we have the federal reserve so to some degree we can have an auction of treasury notes and bring in revenue, they don't. if we end up having a very, very serious economic problem in this country, it's going to trigger a worldwide recession. nobody wins. nobody comes out on top if this happens. and the unemployment numbers, 9.2%, they're going to rise. i don't want people looking at this tonight or any of my colleagues believing that those are my numbers or that i'm the only one who believes there's going to be trouble. ben bernanke, re-appointed by george bush, says if we make deep cuts in the u.s. budget, it is going to create a problem because right now the only money that i
seniors pay the double health care costs. big oil get subsidies, millionaires get tax breaks and corporations pay less taxes. we are hearing that they want to cut medicare. they are proposing to pay even more for medicare benefits through higher co-pays or higher premiums. the solution is fixing the real problem of increasing health care toss costs for all americans, not shifting cost burdens on our seniors. that's not going to work for the 40 million seniors enrolled in the program that have medicare for their health and economic security. that's not all. next week, republican will push a cut in medicare yet. it is pulling the rug from under the seniors in the name of cutting spending. this amendment is designed to make it easier to reduce the deficit by slashing medicare benefits rather than slashing loopholes for private jets. we would have to privatize medicare completely and raise its eligibility age to 67. by forcing congress to keep spending at unheard of levels, we would inevitably shift the real economic burdens onto the nation's most vulnerable, the elderly. it woul
and credit officials. i have also spoken with big banking executives with trade associations, with government watchdog groups and the consumer advocates across the country. i am pleased to report that our various initiatives on improving mortgages and supervising non-bank credit businesses and setting up a strong military service office has received widespread support from both individuals and groups across this country. in my written testimony, i also described in detail the steps congress has taken to provide meaningful oversight over the cfpb and to make sure that it remains accountable both to congress and to the american people. i appreciate the opportunity to discuss that oversight today. so, without chairman isayah, ranking member comings, members of the committee thank you again for inviting me to testify about the consumer financial protection bureau. as we prepare this agency to begin its various responsibilities, we appreciate the important oversight role of the committee and we thank you for your interest. >> i:the gentlelady. without i will recognize myself for five minutes for a
are making it more difficult to get there. so i'm a big fan of the navy with one important exception that is on that saturday in november when we play the army-navy football game. >> having gone from the naval academy into the marine corp., i don't watch that game very often. so -- but it does seem to me that we are at tend of another inevitable historical cycle here when we have extended ground combat deployments that expand the size of the active duty army into the marine corp. at the expense very often of what i would call national strategic assets like our operational navy. i think i'm hearing from you that the same thing i heard from secretary panetta that the 313 ship goal for the navy is a reasonable goal. would that be correct? >> well, my ingaugements over the past three months suggest to me that it is. but again, i think we had a conversation a bit earlier about how do we keep strategy at pace with resource decisions. so that comprehensive strategy review that we're doing should it seems to me re-enforce that or cause it to think differently about it. one of the things i th
attorney general for antitrust is stepping down. there's a big merger of the at&t mobile merger that needs a fair, thorough and expeditious review. and i would hope that her stepping down doesn't delay that. i think we could get that done by the end of the year. in a fair, thorough manner. but i've been in a dialogue with chirm general kowske about making sure with chairman genowokowski. both republicans and democrats, the way they've conducted themselves in taking too long or position that have nothing to do with the substance of the merger itself. so congress could look at that, there could be a statutory provision, certainly. but the best thing to do would be for the f.c.c. to honor its own 180-day shot clock. >> we do from time to time work with the f.c.c. on merger reviews. think from our perspective, you don't deserve a particular outcome but you do deserve a sort of speedy resolution. sometimes it takes a little longer with documents. but that's what you deserve. so i think that's a reasonable point. >> i agree. >> i think most of us would agree with that as well. >> commissioner, d
the august 2 deadline as is if it is no big deal. they say they have their owneal theories about when the real deadline is. that just leaves me dumbfounded. i for one i'm going to take the treasury secretary and virtually every economist at their word.ot we need a solution before august august 2 or we risk economicstr. catastrophe. who there are some members who are essentially saying that the treasury can pirate sites payments to avoid default byt b getting social security checks out shouldn't be a problem. i we pro. heard their republican member onon public radio this pt weekend say that a pirate for social security checks taxes in the trust fund. well, yes, we have $2.6 trilliot in assets in the trust fund, but they are all in treasuries securities, not cash. i find it just stunning that a a member of congress let alone a i member of the budget committee understand the most basic functioning of our government. lit now, if there is no debt limit increase, treasury may be able to juggle payments to get social security checks out on august 3. and i'mo sure they will do do everything t
are big numbers, but we are looking forward as to how we push the afghan security system to a point where they can take care of themselves and in fact begin to run their country as they should. most of my good colleagues' arguments were better suited for the conversation when he in april with reference to the overall budget. that budget passed, this amount that we're now going to spend on the department of defense fits under the discretionary spending cap that we put in place back in april. the subcommittee on defense appropriations had done their work, allocated their amount of moneys across a lot of priorities, it said yes to this issue, so i rise in opposition to my colleague's amendment and would urge my colleagues to oppose it as well. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from rhode island. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is -- mr. cicilline: mr. chairman, i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: a recorded vote has been
karzai government. how about ending wasteful subsidies to big agriculture companies? how about asking billionaire hedge fund managers to pay the same tax rates as their secretaries? the truth is that the best way to deal with our long-term fiscal situation is to grow our economy. that means creating jobs and putting people back to work. the last election i thought was about jobs. we haven't talked about jobs at all since the new republican majority became -- came to power. that means investing in things like education and infrastructure and green technology and medical research. that's the kind of economic future the american people deserve. the boehner default plan would take us exactly in the wrong direction and urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to reject it. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california has 5 1/2 minutes remaining. the gentleman is recognized. mr. dreier: mr. speaker, as i listen to my friend from the other side of the aisle, mr. mcgovern, talk about what ha
and a couple of other colors are absolutely correct. big pharma in this .. fought against any type of health care reform, has made it very expensive. the cost of insulin has increased from about $32 a vial to over $50 a vial. since the health care bill was passed in congress, it is impossible for me to believe that insulin production costs have increased over 100%, or route 100% -- or around 100%. something is going on, and i think it is called greed. i would like the commentators and addressed the issue of healthcare in this country -- if you are willing to provide it people like me with any type of reasonable health care coverage -- they are allowed to continue their criminal behavior. guest: you mentioned that pharmaceuticals opposing health- care reform. that is not the case. we want to make sure that everybody has access to affordable health insurance. we are very much supportive of that . your comment about greed, i just don't agree with that. and a standby people have that perspective, but that is not -- i understand why people have that perspective, but that is not what our companies
the super rich, wall street corporations, big oil, that seems to be more important than the united states government and preventing the united states government from defaulting on our debts. and let me just remind those who want to cut medicare and dismantle medicare, that's basically what they want to do, medicare recipients did not create the national debt and that is unconscionable to even talk about balancing the budget or paying down the debt on the backs of our most vulnerable populations, including those who are facing living in poverty. and let me remind our republican colleagues again that the congressional black caucus under the leadership of chairman cleaver, congresswoman christensen, congressman bobby scott, already offered a budget answered mentioned it earlier, that would save $5.7 trillion from the deficit, protect our most vulnerable communities and would have ensured the stability of medicare, medicaid and social security and our budget was balanced. so the country's not broke am. we know how we got here. two wars, these massive tax cuts for the very wealthy, wall street
6000 pounds. surely some game as big as that, paints him in million pounds, 100,000 pounds, surely you would expect to be dropped into the conversation at some point. you wouldn't have expected them to say that? >> so if things like that went on the agenda -- sorry? what sort of response -- [inaudible] >> genes, -- you may refer to -- >> he would tell you to do the same pound payout? >> he wouldn't tell me that if anyone was due. >> iconology in your view you overpaid, but i can't week to the to mr. clifford in those pieces in that piece, with respect to giving advice of counsel and the executives involved in going back while renewing 2008 in looking at that and remembering bad advice and looking at the context of the time to step back as two years, three years now. it is a decision that given that context with the decision that i would still stand by a think. >> it seems like certainly -- >> apparently there was a contract with rupert murdoch that was canceled. >> i didn't know if you have knowledge of that. >> you were going on? >> it just seems strange to me -- we may come back with
from airports as small as ashville from the airport such as delta county. it's a mixture of big and small airports in best practices in terms what are the kinds of things that are appropriate for each airport. >> all right. again, let me -- i apologize for jumping around. i have a lot of questions in a limited amount of time. you were talking about spending on, for instance, baggage screening equipment. speaking from experience i use at the corpus christi airport. there's three airlines, american continental, regional jets, and southwest with 737's. each individual airline has a screening machine staffed by two tsa agents. we bought three machines for the corpus christi airport, and there's probably a fourth one because delta used to come in there. why couldn't there just be one and a couple tsa agents where there's not that many people there? do we have any clue why we spend multiple -- >> that's a great question. tsa has an electronic baggage screening program to move what they term optimal solutions for each airport. essentially what that means is in many cases they try to re
another $1.8 trillion in cuts. candidly, that's a big step back from where we were a weekend ago. where at least on the cut side, even on the cut side. even the president had agreed to at least $3 trillion in cuts. that's our understanding. what we have coming out of the house right now as a bill that doesn't cut as much as the president had agreed to last weekend. and so we have on this side a bill that cuts about $1 trillion after a spin sport. again, i applaud the leader of the senate for putting forth a bill that at least he's moving us in the right direction. but again, it's $2 trillion short of where the president had been with leaders a week ago. or at least that's our understanding. i'm pretty sure that that understanding is correct. we also know that the general mantra, that's been adopted by wall street and by people that are looking at our country around the world that we need to do something that is at least a $4 trillion solution. so i would say to the senator from california who just spoke, i couldn't agree more. we have not addressed this situation the way that we should.
justice department and atf management and the misguided hope of catching the big fish. having had enough experience with gun trapping investigations, i can only imagine that once the doj oig report was released, to report that was critical of atf efforts in stopping -- drug trafficking the emphasis changed to follow the food chain of the leaders. what they fail to realize is that the end is not just -- justifying the means. these are in the hands of people have no regard for human life who pose a threat to all of us, a threat to watch out of us is immune. i am especially concerned for the brave law-enforcement officers and military in mexico and here in the united states. i fear these firearms will continue a -- long after hearings are over. finally, the request of this committee. the serious problem of gun trafficking will not be forgotten. i don't believe in another toothless love. what we need is vigorous enforcement and prosecution of those that would traffic in firearms a policy of no tolerance and a change in the sentencing guidelines that would dictate mandatory sentences for thes
the capitol. it was a big deal in those days when someone traveled from michigan or louisiana to washington, to help run the social service programs in the district of columbia. in the days before home rule in washington, it was the political wives working with the african-american women who lived there to stitch together a safety net for the citizens of the nation's capitol. there was always the challenge of the political wife to entertain on no money at all, and, of course, she was expected to be the perfect wife and mother. mrs. ford played all those roles, and i'll tell you boy scout mother sounds sweet until you've tried it. [laughter] sunday schoolteacher, leader in the congressional wives prayer group, and yet her official title as it was for most political wives was housewife. it was a title she shared with many american women, and it gave her a great understanding about what women's lives were like. she said once being a good housewife seems to be a much tougher job than going to the office and getting paid for it. she was giving words to the dirty little secret that men always kne
and off-shore drilling, which in california is a big deal because the air blows onto the land. how could they threaten the lives of millions of americans by blocking the e.p.a. how could they put together a bill that could potentially contaminate 117 million americans' water. how could you do that? have you no pride in this country? do you not care about the basic things that we have done to create a country that cares about clean water? you talk about jobs, and yet in this bill, you eliminate the funding for the clean water act, which is really building sanitation facilities in our community? i remember in the 1960's, the great pride, 500 people in my community took when they got money from the federal government and built the first sanitation system in that small town. how could you den eye americans -- deny the americans that opportunity? that's what this bill does. take pride in what you are doing, gentlemen, because at the end of the day, the american public will not take pride in what you are doing to this piece of legislation. with that, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yiel
Search Results 0 to 41 of about 42

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)